Re: Tag ontology RFC

On Apr 5, 2005 10:53 AM, Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> All,
>    I threw some rough notes about the tag ontology on the Web for future
> reference. I might yet also get this thing out of the door, but I have
> a paper to write that I've been putting off :)
> 
>    <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/>
> 
>    Further comments always welcome.

Cool, nice docs. Heh, now this /doesn't/ correspond directly with the
way I'd have modelled it, but I won't hold that against you - I think
it's more or less isomorphic, or at least interoperable.

Where you have "universal" tags, tag:chimpanzee, tag:monkey, all in
the same namespace,  I'd have opted for per-creator tags,
richard:chimpanzee, danny:monkey etc.

Ok, in the universal approach, presumably the Tag instance is tightly
bound to the string - tag:chimpanzee always relates to the literal
"chimpanzee". In the personal approach, the Tag instance is bound to
the concept a specific person associates with the literal
"chimpanzee".

But I reckon there is like to be some level of equivalence between say:

http://example.org/item123 :tag [ a :Tagging ;
   :associatedTag tag:blog, tag:chimpanzee ;
   :taggedBy <http://example.com/People/Jim> ;
] .

and 

http://example.org/item123 :tag Jim:chimpanzee .

It's a funny sort of a situation really - I could certainly imagine
the more granular approach being better for general inference (you
mention the author's opinion), but the direct version might be more
useful for (quick & dirty) queries. But the nice thing is that I
reckon that both approaches could co-exist, class equivalences/subs
could be set up between say tag:chimpanzee and Jim:chimpanzee. There
is a big difference between using Jim:chimpanzee and stating that Jim
did the tagging, but I'm not sure that would be a problem in practice.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 09:42:49 UTC